Why is mainstream media trying to cover up the Susan Rice story?
The worst kind of bias is the bias of omission. And that was never more on display than after reports surfaced earlier this week alleging former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice's had unmasked Trump transition team members.
So why is this a big story that deserves attention? Simply put, one of the highest-ranking members of the previous administration unmasked names of members of the incoming administration via classified intelligence reports, prompting many questions that warrant dogged journalism:
Who leaked the information to newspapers like The Washington Post?
Who, if anyone, ordered Rice to unmask the names of private U.S. citizens in the first place?
Was the ultimate objective of spying and exposing Trump associates for political purposes or for national security reasons?
And why did Rice lie when originally asked about an announcement by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) that Trump and some transition team members were incidentally swept up in surveillance?
To review what happened to prompt the last question above, here's how Rice answered a question around the Nunes revelation when asked by "PBS NewsHour" host Judy Woodruff on March 22.
Rice: “I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today."
Fast forward to Apr. 4 to see the first example of the aforementioned bias of omission: Rice appeared Tuesday on MSNBC to address Monday reports by Bloomberg and Fox News alleging that Rice was behind the unmasking.
Now if I'm host Andrea Mitchell or one of her producers, the first soundbite I cue up is Rice on PBS denying any knowledge that she knew “nothing about” surveillance allegations. It's a simple but highly effective interviewing technique perfected by the late Tim Russert of NBC "Meet the Press" fame: Play the interviewee's own words back to them and ask them to explain themselves if those words appear to be a lie.
Mitchell and team don't bother doing so.
Rice doesn't outright deny the unmasking and curiously jumps to leaking instead with a double negative.
“I leaked nothing to nobody,” she said.
For other major outlets in media, the story appears to have been largely dismissed or diminished as a sideshow.
The New York Times, for example, didn't feature the Rice story at all on Monday. And in the piece it did publish buried on page A16 that was hilariously titled, "Trump Tries to Deflect Russia Scrutiny, Citing ‘Crooked Scheme’ by Obama," the paper of record shrugged off the controversy because the story came from “conservative news media outlets."
You know, "conservative" like the impossibly down-the-middle Eli Lake of Bloomberg View or via an objective reporter like Fox's Adam Housley.
The Washington Post also failed to feature the story in any capacity either, instead relegating it to a blog post that referred to the Rice story as a "fake scandal." Democracy dies in darkness. http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/327364-why-is-mainstream-media-trying-to-cover-up-the-susan-rice-story
Tags
Who is online
66 visitors
That is the question of the day.
That is the question of the day.
The question of the day is, what is the main stream media?
I listen to Fox, CNN and MSNBC all day and I have heard considerable discussion and speculation about whether Susan Rice did something wrong, or was she just doing her job, or it's bullshit, or if she should be shot by a firing squad.
Where have you been Corny? Get your nose out of MAXNEWS and Fox TV for a while and you'll get a better understanding of what's going on in the world.
Because they don't want people to know Trump was right (even partially right) they may start believing other truths and may realize how bad our biased media situation really is in this country and how much they are being brainwashed by it.
Because they don't want people to know Trump was right (even partially right) they may start believing other truths and may realize how bad our biased media situation really is in this country and how much they are being brainwashed by it.
What are you talking about 96? The story was reported and re-reported.
Ad infinitum.....it's been on very cable TV News station for the last couple of days almost 24 hours a day.
HOW ABOUT RESEARCHING THE JOB DUTIES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER AND MAKE MORE EDUCATED COMMENTS...THAT'S PROBABLY ASKING TOO MUCH FROM TRUMP VOTERS...HE DID SAY HE LOVES THE POORLY EDUCATED. .
The totally phony Susan Rice story, explained
The former national security advisor’s surveillance activity is neither illegal or unethical.
Conservatives are seizing on a report that former national security advisor Susan Rice requested the identity of anonymous people named in intelligence reports, claiming that it provides evidence for President Trump’s false claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped.
Bloomberg’s Eli Lake reported Monday that Rice requested the “unmasking” of third parties whose information is collected during targeted surveillance of other individuals. Conservative media jumped on the claim and reported that it corroborates Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee’s allegation that information about Trump’s transition team had been “incidentally collected” during U.S. government surveillance of foreign officials.
But the reports, which originated from the far-right, fringe corners of the internet, do not reveal any illegal activity or violation of privacy laws. They also provide no support for President Trump’s still entirely-unsubstantiated claim that the Obama administration’s surveillance targeted Trump officials.
Funneled from the far right
Susan Rice’s involvement in the unmasking was first reported by far-right extremist Mike Cernovich, who published a story on Medium Sunday alleging that the mainstream media has been attempting to cover up the revelation.
“This reporter has been informed that Maggie Haberman has had this story about Susan Rice for at least 48 hours, and has chosen to sit on it in an effort to protect the reputation of former President Barack Obama,” Cernovich wrote.
Cernovich, a white nationalist, misogynist, and a key figure in the Pizzagate controversy, has been called the “meme mastermind of the alt-right.”
Less than 24 hours later, Bloomberg’s Eli Lake picked up the same reports on Rice’s activity , citing “U.S. officials familiar with the matter.”
Unlike Cernovich, Lake noted that Rice’s unmasking “does not vindicate Trump’s own tweets from March 4 in which he accused Obama of illegally tapping Trump Tower.” Lake did not allege that Rice’s activity is unlawful, but he did write that her actions “highlight a longstanding concern” about surveillance programs.
“[Rice’s] role in requesting the identities of Trump transition officials adds an important element to the dueling investigations surrounding the Trump White House since the president’s inauguration,” Lake wrote.
Within hours, headlines highlighting Rice’s involvement appeared across the conservative internet on sites including Breitbart News , the Daily Caller , the Washington Times , the Washington Examiner , the New York Post , and Gateway Pundit .
In the Washington Examiner , David Fredosso wrote that “Eli Lake has the story that everybody should be talking about today.”
On Fox News, reporter Adam Housley called the unmasking “unprecedented” and stoked anger by claiming that the “names of Americans who had done nothing wrong was disseminated to all of the NSC, some at DOD, Clapper, Brennan, basically the people at the top.” Shortly after, Trump tweeted about the segment .
But according to national security experts, Rice’s actions are far from unprecedented.
No legal or privacy issue
The names of unidentified Americans are masked in intelligence reports to protect the identity of third-parties. When someone with credentials to request the classified information asks for the names to be revealed solely to them, the process is known as unmasking.
The unmasking of unidentified Americans in intelligence reports is within the scope of the job of a national security advisor like Rice. According to Kate Martin, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, Rice’s actions are likely legal and probably do not even raise privacy concerns if the
individuals were part of the Trump transition team. (ThinkProgress is an editorially independent news website housed at the Center for American Progress).
When an American’s identity in a classified intelligence report is unmasked, only those who have a security clearance and the authority to view the classified information may see the unmasked report, Martin said. The information may not be shared with individual members of Congress, let alone outside the government.
Conversations by foreign government officials are routinely surveilled, and those speaking with ambassadors should expect that their conversations may be wiretapped.
Given Russia’s involvement in the U.S. election, it’s not surprising that Rice would look at intelligence reports on Russia, including conversations by Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. If those conversations were with Americans, it follows that Rice would ask for the names to understand more about the conversation.
“There is no legal issue, and if the conversations were by official members of the presidential transition team conducting government business, it is hard to even see what privacy interest those individuals had in such conversations,” Martin said.
Hennessey also wrote that “what we’re seeing here is US officials doing jobs to respond to what had markers of a counterintelligence threat: the Trump campaign.”
Trump still has no support for surveillance claims
Early last month, Trump claimed on Twitter that Obama wiretapped his New York hotel, unleashing weeks of responses, investigations, and allegations.
READ MORE:
HOW ABOUT RESEARCHING THE JOB DUTIES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER
We already know what they are.
Great post, CM!
She already unwittingly as much as admitted it happened.
The New York Times finally got around to writing about Rice spying on Trump. Buried deep down in the story is this sentence quoting “officials” :
So, in other words, the Obama administration disagreed with the policies of the Democratically elected president elect and used the powers of the state to thwart those policies. It’s diplomacy, its policy and it’s not the policy of the Obama Administration. Hence, it’s political.
Another point, if the unmasking of Americans in intelligence reports was “for legitimate reasons,” why not go on the record saying so.
Once again 96, Learn the Job duties of "THE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER" not what Daily Caller and the Other Right Wing, White Supremacists, News Reports has to Say...LEARN THE JOB DUTIES...Which is the Same Duties since the Office has been in existence....
Sorry CM but gathering "intelligence" on your political opponents and unmasking Americans in intelligence reports for political purposes is not part of the job description. This is what she has done, first she said she didn't do it. lied about it (several times) then admitted it but said it was not for political purposes. Never mind she already admitted it was for political purposes. This is the same woman who lied to you for weeks about Bengazi being about a video. Then continued the lie several more times over the course of a few weeks Even after it was PROVEN false.
The New York Times finally got around to writing about Rice spying on Trump. Buried deep down in the story is this sentence quoting “officials” :
quoted textThey also said Mr. Obama’s advisers worried during the transition — as he imposed sanctions on Russia for its election meddling — that the Trump transition team was trying to undermine American policy before coming to office.
So, in other words, the Obama administration disagreed with the policies of the Democratically elected president elect and used the powers of the state to thwart those policies. It’s diplomacy, its policy and it’s not the policy of the Obama Administration. Hence, it’s political.
ONCE AGAIN 96!!!!AS A "NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER" Notice the word "ADVISER" her job was to gather information on Foreign Entities...E.G. FOREIGN DIPLOMATS... Who may be Chattering about doing "HARM" on AMERICAN SOIL...Apparently TRUMP AND HIS PEOPLE were having a lot on conversations with Foreign Diplomats perhaps even before the Election...SO YES!!!! Her job is to GATHER INFORMATION and see who those AMERICANS were that was having CONVERSATIONS...It is Simple...As per your Benghazi reference...WHATEVER became of THAT!!!!NOTHING ALL A WITCH HUNT...
once again:
Sorry CM but gathering "intelligence" on your political opponents and unmasking Americans in intelligence reports for political purposes is not part of the job description.
Sorry CM but gathering "intelligence" on your political opponents and unmasking Americans in intelligence reports for political purposes is not part of the job description.
She was not collecting intelligence on Trump or his campaign or transition team. She was not able to. She was reviewing information that our intelligence agencies had collected (not by her) on Russians. She did not unmask anyone as no National Security Advisor has the power to do so. All intelligence reports she receives from the reporting agencies, such as the FBI or the CIA or whoever, always have all of the Americans names masked (redacted) on all intercepts. All she can do is to file a request from the agency that sent her a report and ask them if they would be willing to unmask the American person's name. The reporting agency then reviews her request and they (not her) decide if the name can or can not be unmasked for her and the President. She has no control over their decision. None. When she send such a request she has no idea whose name has been masked, so she could not have been targeting Trump or his campaign or transition team, since until the names were revealed to her by the reporting intelligence agency (if they were as all requests are not granted) she had no way of knowing what the redacted name was. Also unmasking does not mean releasing to the public or un-classifying. It just means that the name becomes available to her to use in her daily summary to the President on that day's Russian activity.
As an added point, the House and Senate Intelligence committees also have access to the same unmasking power and as everyone knows there is never a leak from any member of Congress or their staff. /s
All right … let's get this under control now.
Why was the comment just above flagged?
Why was the comment posted 3 comments above this one above flagged?
Correct me if I am wrong..would you rather RUSSIA do us harm than find out what they are up to???96
CM,
Practically ALL countries meddle in other countries elections INCLUDING THE USA. Actually, truth be told, we are probably the worst. It pains me to say this but sometimes the truth hurts.
Russian meddling (as well as other foreign countries) is nothing new. The only thing that IS new is that liberals are trying to blame losing the election on it instead of living up to the fact they lost because they rigged the primary and tried to shove an unlikable criminal down the countries throat.
SO far there has been no evidence of anyone from the Trump campaign doing anything wrong. (nothing wrong with speaking with Russians or any other foreigners for that matter) Speaking with someone does not prove collusion and BO & Hillary supporters of all people should know this.
The moment you find Russia did more than expose truths about Hillary to influence the election I will be protesting right beside you. Until then I will use the liberals favorite line to defend Hillary. Show me the conviction. It's a bitch that it works both ways isn't it?
SO far there has been no evidence of anyone from the Trump campaign doing anything wrong.
So far, but it is still early in the various investigations. Much testimony has not yet been given. It's far too early to draw any conclusion one way or another.
Yea I am VERY interested in ANY proof ANYONE on the Trump campaign did ANYTHING wrong. I am also VERY interested in finding out more about the unmasking rice denied then admitted to after proof emerged but is still trying to deny it was political.
The FBI Director Comey said that they have substantial evidence in Russian meddling in front of the House intelligence Committee and that it was still investigating. No intelligence agency or committee is going to reveal the evidence they have until they are through with their investigation and ready to issue it's findings or in the case of the FBI, who BTW have just substantially expanded the number Agents to the investigation because they are finding out too much information for the Agents they had assigned to the case to handle, until they are ready to recommend indictments. Again, no one is going to go public with their evidence at this point.
Oh and Susan Rice could not unmask any names. Only the intelligence agency that collected the information can.
It's far too early to draw any conclusion one way or another.
Quite correct. Why then are you assuming that the Trump people are guilty of something? The FBI is investigating those possibilities and have, so far, according to Director Comey, found nothing. Therefore, the criminal acts that the Democrats have been screaming about don't exist, and won't unless something is found.
Rice also has not yet been proven to have done anything illegal. Suspicious yes, but not yet illegal. We do know, however, that the law was broken in that case, so it deserves lots of investigation, probably more intense investigation than the Russian matter. Why? Because we KNOW, without any doubt, that a felony was committed. Since it was allowed by her job description for her to unmask the names, that was probably not a criminal act in itself. However, once unmasked, those names were in her custody and she was responsible for seeing to it that they did not become public. The leaking is the felony and we know that it was committed because the media couldn't have had those names in any other way. Since she's the only one who had them, she becomes the number one suspect. If she didn't leak them herself but provided them to someone else who did leak them, she was, at the very least, negligent. If she knew that the person she gave the names to was going to leak them, she then becomes an accessory.
We do know, however, that the law was broken in that case, so it deserves lots of investigation, probably more intense investigation than the Russian matter. Why? Because we KNOW, without any doubt, that a felony was committed. Since it was allowed by her job description for her to unmask the names, that was probably not a criminal act in itself. However, once unmasked, those names were in her custody and she was responsible for seeing to it that they did not become public. The leaking is the felony and we know that it was committed because the media couldn't have had those names in any other way. Since she's the only one who had them, she becomes the number one suspect. If she didn't leak them herself but provided them to someone else who did leak them, she was, at the very least, negligent. If she knew that the person she gave the names to was going to leak them, she then becomes an accessory.
This is true so the next question is WHY WON'T THEY INVESTIGATE IT? Cuz you know they won't.
This is true so the next question is WHY WON'T THEY INVESTIGATE IT? Cuz you know they won't.
What do you think Nunes was doing? The guys who replace him aren't going to let up on it either. Trey Gowdey is like a pit bull once he gets hold of something. Also, despite his official ten year term, the Director of the FBI will investigate anything the President tells him to investigate. If he's told to investigate something by the President and fails to do so, that's insubordination and the ten year term won't save him.
I hope you're right.
Also, despite his official ten year term, the Director of the FBI will investigate anything the President tells him to investigate. If he's told to investigate something by the President and fails to do so, that's insubordination and the ten year term won't save him.
Actually the Director of the FBI does not report to the President or work for him or follow his orders and is not the head of his private investigative force. He reports to the Attorney General. So if the President orders him to investigate something and he refuses to do so the worst that can happen to him is that the President can try to have him fired, though that is practically unheard of and would cause a HUGE scandal since The Justice Department is supposed to be separate from the Presidential administration and Comey is investigating the current adminstration. His job would almost certainly be safe, which is why FBI Directors have a Ten Year Term. In fact it has only happened one and that was when Bill Clinton fired Director William Sessions for complete incompetence. George H.W. Bush agreed with him before he left office and an internal report under Bush said that Sessions liked the trappings of the office, but never actually did anything. hat's why it didn't cause a scandal. Sessions wasn't actually investigating anyone and everyone on both sides of the aisle was happy to see him go.
The Attorney General is not the President's lawyer, he is the people's lawyer. The FBI is not the President's police force. They are the people's police force, which is why they can investigate the President for the people.
If he's told to investigate something by the President and fails to do so, that's insubordination and the ten year term won't save him.
I Don't think you are correct on that TTGA, The President cannot tell any branch of the Government or order any other Branch of the Govt. to do his bidding, the only people he can Order is the Military...He cannot order Comey to investigate anything, that is why he was stopped with his travel Ban, and he wants Gorsuch on the Supreme Court..
The USA is not one of Trump's Businesses..
The USA is not one of Trump's Businesses..
I don't know about that.......
The day is coming! Just as soon as he has the White House painted gold. A real trashy Gold.
The Intelligence will go with the power and Obama's power is slipping away rapidly.
It will be investigated and it should. The MSM that I've heard mentioned on this article may be talking about it, but they are wanting to discredit it before it is investigated in hope it will go away. They've become accustom to anything that hurts the Democrats be taken care of by the DOJ, but there's a new sheriff in town now and I bet a lot of shaking going on.
Let's see Rice doesn't know anything, I mean anything about the unmasking and just like the video it was proven she was lying. Farkas said if they found out where we got the information, it would compromise us and we wouldn't get it anymore. And she was adamant about getting it out before Obama left office. And Obama opened the doors right before he left to make it happen. Now anyone who doesn't question all that is a little dense, in my opinion. No offense, but to question is a blessing and a curse.
Since it was allowed by her job description for her to unmask the names, that was probably not a criminal act in itself. However, once unmasked, those names were in her custody and she was responsible for seeing to it that they did not become public.
She can not unmask any names. She can only request that the agency that collected the name(s) of the Americans involved in conversations between two Russians where one or both are under surveillance by them or the name(s) of Americans involved in conversation between a Russian under surveillance and another non-American or a conversation between a Russian who is under surveillance and having a direct conversation with an American. In all of those cases any and all reports sent to the White House and to the heads on the Intelligence committees would have those names masked (Blacked out. Redacted). At that point she could have and did have if she felt she needed to have one or more of those names to more thoroughly brief the President, she may request whatever agency sent her the information where the name(s) have been masked if they would unmask the name (reveal the name to her) and then it becomes up to that agency to decide if they are or are not going to unmasked the name(s).
So when you say that she unmasked the any names, you are incorrect. She did not because she can not unmask any names and in fact does not even know the name that has been blacked out unless and until the agency decides to reveal it to her (or do the same for a request from one of the top two members of each Intelligence Committees).
So, since she is not the only person who can ask for an unmasking, it is a huge leap to say that she is responsible for any names being leaked to the press. If you have any evidence that it is her and her alone that did leak any unmasked name, then I suggest you contact your local FBI office and tell them. I am sure they would thank you.
Why then are you assuming that the Trump people are guilty of something? The FBI is investigating those possibilities and have, so far, according to Director Comey, found nothing.
I have never assumed any such thing? I have just said that the investigations are continuing and that James Comey has said that they have some substantial evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Also the House Intelligence Committee and the Senate Intelligence Committee are also investigating. I admit that I do find it od the former National Security Advisor Flynn has been asking for immunity though. I would like to hear what he has to say.
Bitch that works both ways isn't it?
96: Did you refer to me as a "Bitch"???
No I was alluding to the fact that it is a bitch when your own tactics are used against you. Liberals defended Hillary by saying "show me the conviction" regardless of mounting evidence (in nearly countless instances) and the fact that she is above the law, But seem to want "justice" with Trump over rumors. to that I say SHOW ME THE CONVICTION. I edited it to say IT'S a bitch to avoid confusion.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't like you. I enjoy our debates. I would hope you think better of me than that.
96 Apology accepted, I know the POTUS has very bad grammar and putting sentences together, So, I am careful in speech and writing that I do not emulate his bad grammar because words means everything...Of Course, I think better of you, we have never had a problem in the many years..So, I am Ok..
I will remove the violation.
Russian meddling (as well as other foreign countries) is nothing new. The only thing that IS new is that liberals are trying to blame losing the election on it instead of living up to the fact they lost because they rigged the primary and tried to shove an unlikable criminal down the countries throat.
We don't know if that's the cause, the only cause, or one of a number of causes … and we do know that Putin/Russia hired individuals to run bots that responded to pro-Hillary tweets … with ANTI-HILLARY tweets.
And we know there's an on-going investigation.
I'm damned certain that had Trump lost and the RNC hacks were released, you'd be crying "foul".
The "criminal" allegation is for the most part attributable to the bots and the right-wing smear campaign.
And if Trump would release his tax returns, we might find actual connections to criminality.
The willing dupes don't want any investigations or leaks that might reveal some inconvenient truths although they're quite content to accept as true, what was delivered by a hostile foreign power!
That's hypocrisy and a danger to the U.S. democracy.
Gunny is on a flagging-tear; if it continues and the flaggings are for no legitimate reason,
Gunny is on a flagging-tear
What a shock.
He has been waiting a long time for this opportunity.
To a child with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I expressed my fears that this feature might be abused.
History repeats itself. My last day on the NV I was attacked by 3 Liberals that didn't like anything I had to say even though I really didn't say anything bad that day. One of them actually put a comment up telling everyone who read my comments, yes that is with an "s" to put it as spam.
Of course I was on the Rachel Maddow site, which I'd never been on before and I found that was where the real wackos hung out. So the next day what's his name banned me. I never did anything to be banned, but I received so many "spams" I was banned anyway.
Now getting back to the subject, remember that song Shake, Rattle and Roll?
Who in the fuck attacked you??? That's MY job!
Rock around the clock was better.
<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZgdufzXvjqw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
That's pretty good, but there has to be some payback for all this corruption........ and I have the man to collect right here.......
And I know just how to be delivered from owing that payback...besides, what corruption? I haven't seen any?
<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gsC4kf6x_Q0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I'm pretty sure thy have been doing that stuff for the last several elections. As soon as they find something concrete let me know. Until then we are both merely speculating aren't we?
Until then we are both merely speculating aren't we?
To a point, absolutely; but we're not speculating about the existence of an investigation, the Russian Bots, the hacking, and other knowns.
And much of the allegations against Clinton were unsubstantiated but many went beyond speculation. I ask that all be done even-handedly rather than selectively.
Great post Cm. It's very informative and I've heard that description 15 times in the past 2 days, but it's way too complicated for our average Right Winger to comprehend. So we'll just have to put up with their bad jokes they use to cover their stupidity.
Those scary black people are conspiring against white people! ARGH! I'm a'scared
What's worse?
1)Being racist, or
2)accusing people of being racist?
Oh, you're not accusing anyone, you're just kinda "throwing it out there" aren'tcha...
JP - why are you always trying to fight with me? I thought we were besties but now I'm starting to think maybe I was wrong.
I'm not accusing anyone of being racists. It's not me saying it. That's what other people are saying.....(I think that's how Donald usually phrases it, right?).
I'm not trying to fight with you. I'm just expressing my disapproval of your post.
Don't take it personally.
I would prefer you just say "PJ - I disagree with you" or "PJ - stop being so dramatic" or "PJ - that's ridiculous" or "PJ - as your bestie it's my duty to tell you when you're completely off base".
Yes, I admit I was poking at Six but I'm aggravated with him right now. hahahahaha
I'm not accusing anyone of being racists. It's not me saying it. That's what other people are saying.....(I think that's how Donald usually phrases it, right?).
Haven't you figured it out by now not to quote what TRUMPO SAYS..He speaks backward, he makes up his own words not in the English Language, TRUMPO is just "Special"
Sounds like it, doesn't it. Think Progress sounds like a fake name, though. LOL
Sounds like it, doesn't it. Think Progress sounds like a fake name, though. LOL
Is that all you can come up with...Allow me to break it down..It Means Progressive Thinkers...Not Backward Thinkers...
Think progress is a "progressive" blog that is founded by one of Pelosi's dogs and it's objective is to brainwash other "progressives" to believe it is OK to strip Americans of their rights in the name of political correctness.
Progressives used to fight for free speech, the new twisted "progressives" silence it. (See Berkley) Progressive has become a dirty word that anyone interested in freedom should be ashamed to be associated with.
Dowser:
This is what I found on Wiki regarding Cernovich...
Mike Cernovich
Mike Cernovich (born November 17, 1977) is an American lawyer, social media personality and author. Usually described as part of the alt-right ,
he describes himself as "new right" and an "American nationalist.
Cernovich's website Danger & Play started in 2012 and was originally known mainly for self-improvement content. However, during the 2016 US presidential election campaign , it largely focused on pro- Donald Trump and anti- Hillary Clinton commentary Cernovich periodically promotes falsehoods and conspiracy theories, such as those that Clinton had health problems and that she was part of a pedophile ring located in the basement of a Washington DC pizza restaurant .
Early life
Cernovich was born on November 17, 1977. ] He grew up in a devout Christian family ] in the farming town of Kewanee, Illinois. The family was poor, and his mother suffered from mental illness. He graduated from the University of Illinois and later attended the Pepperdine University School of Law . (In talking about his background, Cernovich has complained that the media “have no idea what it’s like to struggle the way I struggle and the way the working class struggles,” and alleged that this is "why I am a hero of the working class”.)
It does say his mother suffered mental illness, that could take a toll on a young person's own mentality..he seems to be drawn to the weird...
Thanks, dear CM!!! I was just curious...
I deleted my comment because I thought it to be too volatile... I don't want to throw gasoline on the flames...
Dowser:
This is our only way of protest...Throw as much gasoline, just don't get a COC..Lol
what exactly are you protesting? How does flaming help achieve the results you seek?
Just so you know Dowser, the link CM gave on Think progress is just as one-sided as Chernovich is. One is ALT-Left the other ALT-Right. Keep it all in prospective.
Just so you know Dowser, the link CM gave on Think progress is just as one-sided as Chernovich is. One is ALT-Left the other ALT-Right. Keep it all in prospective.
IS IT AS ONE SIDED AS YOUR DEFINITION OF PROGRESSIVE???
YOU HAVE FORGOTTEN THE WORD IN THE ENGLISH DICTIONARY..
IF ONE IS NOT PROGRESSING, YOU ARE GOING BACKWARD OR REMAINING IN THE SAME PLACE, THAT'S JUST LIKE GOING BACKWARD..
Progressive has become a dirty word that anyone interested in freedom should be ashamed to be associated with.
TRUMP VOTER!!!
Sorry luv I am not a Trump supporter and didn't vote for him, just calling out BS when I see it.
This is why you should be ashamed to call yourself progressive. They aint what they used to be.
Please feel free to dispute any of it as well as you are able.
ALso, did you notice one of your definitions of liberalism referenced Libertarians? LMAO! I will let you think about that one.
Not interested in RIGHT WING GARBAGE...
No one tells me how to speak or think or anything...I am myself, Free thinker..
Truth about today's progressives hurt too much?
True free thinkers don't throw gasoline on a fire as a way to protest the free expression of a differing opinion than ones own.
True posters don't always vote their own posts up. That is really, really, really insecure.
XX, if you rally want to know why there is not a Susan Rice scandal or story for the MSM to be ignoring then you need to go to the below link and learn what it is a National Security Advisor does. Once you understand that, then you wll know that it is literally, impossible for hr to be guilty of what you are accusing her of doing. She could not unmask any names because they are redacted when they got to her. They wre blacked out. And not by some kind of piece of tape that she could remove or a marker where she could hold it up to the light and see the name under the ink. All any National Security Advisor can do (just like the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees can do) is to send a request to the Intelligence agency that redacted the name in the classified report and ask that agency if they are willing to unmasked the name for them. At that point the Intelligence agency reviews the request and they decide if to unmask the name or not. So when you read a story or article that Susan Rice is guilty of unmasking names from the Trump campaign or transition team you'll know it is a lie, because she had no way of even knowing what the name on the classified report was until it was unmasked by the Intelligence agency the masked it in the first place. Also understand that this can be requested by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, so to accuse her of being the person who may have leaked any of the names is a HUGE leap, considering how leaky Congress is. Please don't pass on lies from the right wing press and please don't accuse her of something when there is absolutely no way for you to know if it's true and when there is a very, very good chance that it is not. Thank you. Read. Learn. Understand.
I am not a Trump supporter and didn't vote for him, just calling out BS when I see it
Well you certainly fooled me and I daresay some others on this site. You may not have voted for him but you certainly defend everything Trump and attack everything Democratic so whether you actually cast your vote for him or not you've embraced him and his policies wholeheartedly. Along with those policies you get to own his actions towards minorities and women.......luv.
you certainly defend everything Trump
Not so PJ. I think the nuclear option is foolish and have said so. I don't like many Trump policies especially his support for civil forfeiture
There are many other of his polices I don't care for as well. It only SEEMS I am always defending him because I constantly call out BS and there is a lot of it going around about Trump,
Along with those policies you get to own his actions towards minorities and women.......luv.
That is the most ridiculous statement you have ever made that am aware of, but Do tell, What terrible ACTIONS has he done towards minorities and women? (this goes back to that "pointing out BS" thing I was talking about)
Well I didn't really expect a reply mainly because you can't but thank you for perfectly illustrating and proving my BS point.
I thought you were being facetious. I mean, come on......who in their right mind can deny that Trump hasn't used his positions to intimidate and harass women or that he clearly has an issue with minorities unless you are of a similar mindset.
Are you Rip Van Winkle? Have you been asleep through his whole campaign where one situation after another was exposed?
The beauty pageants he held where he would pop in on the young ladies when they were in various stages of undress, his infamous declaration about being able to grab pussies all because of who he is and how much money he has, and the unforgettable statement in which he agreed his daughter is a great piece of ass. I mean seriously, what kind of father would allow another man to speak that way about his daughter and then agree with him? How fucked up is that or are you okay with that? How about punishing women for having the gall to make a decision about their own bodies.....and without a man's approval.
How about the birther issue? Have you forgotten about that? What about the muslim bans he has attempted to put in place. Just out of curiosity, how many muslims do you think are white? How about those mexican rapists or that judge with mexican heritage? Lord knows he wouldn't be able to rule on Trump's case without taking into consideration that Trump is building a wall, yeah, he's building a wall (I never get tired of watching that interview with Jake Tapper. What a fucking moron Trump is. hahahaha)
I'm sure I could add more and more examples but I'm realistic. There is no way you will ever accept the truth about Trump. If you like your alternative reality with the alternative facts you've been fed then who am I to take away your happiness living in blissful ignorance. It's just not worth my time or my mental health.
I mean, come on......who in their right mind can deny that Trump hasn't used his positions to intimidate and harass women or that he clearly has an issue with minorities unless you are of a similar mindset.
It should be very easy for you to provide links with proof of his ACTIONS then. Why don't you ? Because you can't. You have alluded to beauty pageants before he was president. We are discussing his ACTIONS toward women and minorities SINCE he has become president.
Just out of curiosity, how many muslims do you think are white?
tens of millions.
No, 96 - I'm not getting sucked into a pointless exercise. You're not open to seeing the truth and I'm okay with that.
What about the muslim bans he has attempted to put in place.
Control of our borders has long been a power granted to POTUS . [Obama has used this power.] If you are OK with not vetting potentially dangerous immigrants you become in favor of potential terrorist infiltration . Trumps exec order was NOT a "ban" , merely a temporary restriction to allow for proper vetting AND it was NOT based on religion , only on country of origin ...
Thirty years ago, when American liberals cared about individual rights, they would have gone ballistic over this abuse of power. Now, of course, they only care about identity politics and the rights of favored groups. So now they cheer trampling on the privacy of individuals because it serves there idealogical purpose.
Why is mainstream media trying to cover up the Susan Rice story?
The honest answer is that they are not.
Right. They're just not reporting on it or investigating it.
I have seen extensive reports and investigations on the story on a daily basis on several cable news stations.
The only one I saw is the interview in which she admitted what she previously denied.
The only one I saw is the interview in which she admitted what she previously denied.
That one I have never seen. As for the story itself...Then you have been only watching ESPN. It's been on every cable news station nearly 24-7 for days now and if you haven't seen it you have had your eyes closed and ear plugs in. If you watch ANY cable news station the past few days it has been impossible to avoid. In fact I have changed news channels a couple of times to see what else was happening only to find this story on three at once and on the nightly news of all three networks for at least 5 or 6 days.
Let's put this discussion in its proper perspective …
THE HEADLINE ASKS A QUESTION THAT IS NOT A QUESTION AT ALL, rather, a rhetorical question about a premise that is not factually substantiated.
Why Is Mainstream Media Trying To Cover Up The Susan Rice Story?
According to who/what sources is there such a cover up?
We get this kind of disingenuous crap from the same people and sources endlessly.
And when you try to logically explain a mistake they are saying and point out where they are wrong in their facts, such as Susan Rice not being ABLE to unmask names, that it was physically impossible for her to do, some of the people on here metaphorically just close their eyes, clap their hands over their ears and start going "La! La! La! I can't hear you!!! La! La! La! I can't hear you!!!" and on and on and on. And then in their next post they say something like "Susan Rice is guilty of unmasking Trump's staff names!" (sigh)